Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754469Ab0HHSdu (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:33:50 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:47092 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753672Ab0HHSdt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2010 14:33:49 -0400 References: <20100806123047.GE31326@sirena.org.uk> <20100806172226.GH2432@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100806173325.GA25367@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20100806181832.GJ2432@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100807001431.GA3252@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20100807062828.GB28087@thunk.org> <20100808160810.GA7968@srcf.ucam.org> (sfid-20100808_180840_654689_2C4E6C39) Message-Id: From: Mark Brown To: Felipe Contreras In-Reply-To: (sfid-20100808_180840_654689_2C4E6C39) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: iPad Mail (7B405) Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 7B405) Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 19:34:12 +0100 Cc: Matthew Garrett , "Ted Ts'o" , "david@lang.hm" , "Paul E. McKenney" , Brian Swetland , kevin granade , Arve Hj?nnev?g , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arjan van de Ven , "linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "pavel@ucw.cz" , "florian@mickler.org" , "stern@rowland.harvard.edu" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1438 Lines: 17 On 8 Aug 2010, at 18:08, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> It's clearly possible for a pathological Android application to destroy >> the power management policy. But to do that, the author would have to >> explicitly take a wakelock. That's difficult to do by accident. > > The writer can take a wakelock the whole time the application is > running (isn't that the typical case?), because perhaps the author > realizes that way the application works correctly, or he copy-pasted > it from somewhere else. That would be exceptionally unusual. A more common case is that the application will take a wakelock while performing some specific long running task which needs no user intervention such as downloading a file or displaying constantly update status that the user is not expected to respond to. There's no need for applications to take wakelocks while the user is directly interacting with them since the system will be kept awake as a result of the user interaction, the wakelocks are used to override the default suspend that occurs when the user is not interacting with the device.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/